DoofersDad

It's maybe not the draw I would choose but I bet Killie and Falkirk like it even less.

If the complications of the English language were not enough on their own, things are made even worse by the huge variety of accents throughout the country.

The joke: Q. What's the difference between a bison and a buffalo? A. You can't wash your hands in a buffalo! only becomes funny when said in a brummie accent.

Even people in other parts of the UK can really struggle to understand what is being said in a broad Aberdonian or Glaswegian accent, for instance.

It never ceases to amaze me just how well people cope with English as their non native tongue

When we had a very poor start to the season everyone seemed to be saying things would be better when Imrie was fit again. Now it seems he can do little right in some people's eyes. His work rate is usually brilliant and if he could only improve in his distribution of the ball he would be one of the most effective players in the league. I hope he stays.

Have you noticed how alcohol can get words mixed up and change their meaning?

After a few beers a woman can seem awfully pretty but in the morning appear pretty awful (or so I'm told)

I can't see why there should be any debate; Boyd is far and away the best striker Scotland have got or have had for many years. His record speaks for itself and is even more impressive when you consider the number of times he has only appeared as a substitute. He should be first on the team sheet with a side picked to compliment his strengths. If there was a UK team he would be the only Scot in the squad on present form.

Its a bit like saying Don Bradman should not have been in the Australian Cricket team. "yes, he scored a few runs but what else did he contribute to the team?"

A good discussion. I couldn't have got to the game as I only finally managed to dig myself out an hour ago, nevertheless, I think the game should have gone ahead unless there were good reasons why the club was unable to stage it.

I agree with the argument that if the police can advise or direct the postponement of a football match, them why not other activities? Are the pubs being closed? I think not! Somebody else mentioned the ski slopes - how on earth can it be unsafe to stage a football match in the town but be fine to allow folk to drive 2,500ft up a windswept mountain?

Advice not to travel unless your journey is absolutely necessary is the police just covering their backs. The fact is that any journey you ever take has risk associated with it and as long as we have some accurate information about weather condidtions then we can decide whether that information changes our minds to travel or not. I think it is wrong that when some folk have made some real effort to get up for the game, it is called off because the police won't allow us to make our own decisions.

I don't know what the statistics are but because people generally drive more cautiously in the snow so that whilst there may be more accidents, they tens to be pretty minor. There are probably more people killed or seriously injured on the roads when there is no snow. People are much more at risk when the roads are wet and it then freezes - this happens a lot but would a game be called off because a weather forcast predicted that there may be a shower or two and the temperature may fall to freezing? Again, I think not!

This is the increasing influence of the nanny state gone mad. Let us make our own decisions, please!

I'm not saying the guy was stupid but when affected by manic depression the mood swings can be severe and can last for weeks . for the Chinese to not even carry out any tests to determine the severity of the alleged disorder is unacceptable IMHO .

So what's the answer? If they had done tests and found him to be ill, what would they have done? Returned him to the UK?

Just because you are ill does not excuse you from being responsible for your actions otherwise being mentally ill would be a licence to be above the law. Whilst society should treat and care for the mentally ill, society cannot allow the mentally ill to be above the law. Either they have to accept the consequences of their actions or they need to be detained if they are not capable of being responsible for their actions.

I agree with you that they should have done tests but I also agree with Smee that it is unlikely that any level of mental illness would have been considered to be so severe to think it reasonable that he was not responsible for his actions. If he had been diagnosed as severely ill then negotiations around repatriation might have been appropriate. The lesson is that whether or not you like another country's laws and customs, if you choose to go there, you respect them or face the consequences.

Double the world's population and you halve each person's share of resource consumption the planet can sustain.

But it doesn't. Double the size of the population of the Western Sahara and there is still very little environmental impact. A small proportion increase in the US or Western Europe leads to a huge change in resource use. It's not the poor that created the problem, nor is limiting their population the solution. That lies with changing from a consumer economy to a green economy.

We don't all consume anything like the same resources person for person, country for country. Consumerism, with it's many add-ons (cash crops for wheat, imported vegetables, higher reliance on meat products, power-hungry but unnecessary machines etc etc etc) is the main problem. The rich are the cause and only a sea change in attitude can solve it. A simple population divided by resource model is crude, simplistic and unfair.

In fact, some figures. From 1980 to 2005 sub-Saharan Africa grew by around 20%. That contributed to under 2.5% in CO2 increase. North America grew by around 4% but produced an extra 15% CO2. So, if we reduced sub-Saharan Africa's population by one-fifth, there would still be no significant impact upon climate change. Population does not necessarily equate to amount of environmental damage. Consumerism is the key factor. But what you gonna give up for it?

But the point is that we need to aspire for the world's poor to live better lives than they currently do. Whilst we should consume less, many of the world's population need to consume more. If there is only so much to go round, if there are twice as many of us, we all get half as much on average.

When I started this thread, I had in the back of my mind a game in the Sothern League cup a few years ago but I couldn't recall the details. I have now found it and it is remarkable not so much for the comeback but what happened after.

This was in the 3rd round of the cup in 2004 and late in the 2nd half Rugby Town went 2-0 up. It stayed that way till 3 minutes from time when Sutton Coldfield pulled a goal back before equalising in injury time. Then in Extra time, Sutton Coldfield scored 6 times with one player scoring 4.

2-0 down with 3 minutes to go and then winning 8-2 is not bad!

The only thing which will really save the planet (this by the way is a SERIOUS post) is the humble condom and allied contraceptive methods

Absolutely WRONG!

No matter how many children the Third World has, they consume virtually nothing. Most people won't even switch on a lightbulb. It's consumerism that's damaging the world. Walk around many cities and see the air-conditioning units. When did we ever need them? How many cars growing up and how many now?

One-sixth of the population produce NO significant emissions according to a recent paper. These are also the areas with the highest population growth (to ensure some survive). A Wally Yacht (luxury yacht) burns more fuel in TEN MINUTES than the majority of Africans burn in their entire life.

It's easy to blame other people but it's the developed world that cut down all it's trees (save the rainforest 'coz we cut down all our woodland), been spouting mass pollution for years, stripped the world of it's resources and organised the world into countries that weren't needed or desired.

Sorry, but Charles is absolutely RIGHT.

Whilst accepting what you say about who consumes what, we need to think longer term than the dreadful inequalities in the world today. Those who are have nots aspire to have what the developed world currently has. The sad fact is that the planet cannot possibly sustain the current world population at a level of material wealth enjoyed by the richest 5% of the worlds population today or any thing like. The level of material wealth per capita the planet can sustain is directly proportional to the number of people on the planet.

There is certainly a lot we can do about more equitable distribution of wealth and in improving the environmental impact of our modern lifestyles but Charles is spot on in that the single biggest factor in all of this is the size of the world's polulation. Double the world's population and you halve each person's share of resource consumption the planet can sustain. I know this raises a plethora of extraordinarily difficult ethical issues but that does not stop it from being true.

I think there have been loads of posts more entertaining than Mainstanders repetition of well known stereotyping of the political parties and thankfully most of them are not in the serious topics section. His humour only reaches the mildly amusing level because the message it delivers is so far removed from the truth.

Over the years I have met a lot of politicians in various capacities and the thing that impresses me about almost all those I have met, regardless of political colour, is that they are incredibly hard working and public spirited. Of course some of them like the sound of their own voices and are very good at publicising themselves but that is not about being self interested. It is about getting their political message across and that, regardless of their political persuasion is about trying to improve society for the rest of us.

And whilst there may be one or two who exploit the expenses system the majority do not. For most politicians, filling in expenses is a chore they really do not have the time for and returns are often completed by staff or family members. Errors happen and sometimes inappropriate things get claimed for, but so what! There will be plenty of things they could claim for but don't but you never hear the media talk about that. What does it say of our society when we seem to be more interested in whether an MP claimed for a tube of toothpaste than on their campaigning for democracy in Iran or whatever.

The fact is, most politicians are highly inteligent, hard working, public spirited individuals and they would not be put forward by their parties if they were not. The vast majority could be paid far more money for working far less hours if they used their talents in business and they live lives which put incredible pressure on their personal relationships. But they do it often from a sense of duty because they want to do good for society and to influence things in line with what they believe in. If the media focussed on the work they do and not on the trivial irrelevant tittle tattle of their personal lives then perhaps more people would be inclined to vote.

You may not be convinced by what I say but please consider this. Over the years thousands of people have died in trying to win the right to vote and this struggle continues to this day in many parts of the world. A vote is a precious thing which we owe to others to use. If you don't want to vote for any of the candidates at an election then that's your right. But please don't just not bother to vote. Go to the polling station and spoil your ballot paper! Write a short statement such as "I vote for the nationalisation of all banks" or whatever it is you feel none of the candidates represent your views on. That way you show you care and your statement demonstrates that you feel your views are not being represented. You also earn the right to criticise those politicians who you then feel are failing us.

If you don't put a mark on that ballot paper somewhere, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

2010 election. So what are the choices?

New Improved Labour - nicked many of Thatchers policys in order to get elected in 97. Really The New Tory Party who for some strange reason still sing the Red Flag at there conferances. What a hypocriticle joke that is.

Conservatives - bunch of public school tw*ts hell bent on loking after there own and stuff the little man. The party of priviledge who still think they are the natural ruling classes.

LibDems - Bloody Nice Blokes but.... oops. Run out of anything more to say about the LibDems!

SNP - The White Heather Club. A "pretendy" political party which is really a Regional Single Issue Pessure Group. Small minded wee Jocks who love picking fights with Westminster and the English. More interested in using minority power at Holyrood to con Scots into independance than to run the place.

BNP - The Grand Loyal Orange Order of England. Bunch of racist, fascist skinhead neds who should be criminalised.

Greens - shower of tree hugging lentil eating hippys.

UKIP - Think their still running the Empire. Little Englanders.

Add to that the unifying "principles" which they all, as politicians, share with a vengance - Self interest, electability and screwing the expenses system for every penny they can.

These are your options apart from - Dont Vote.

A depressing but all too common attitude which is why the UK political scene is in the kind of mess it is now. As I said in another recent thread, we get the politicians we deserve. If you don't vote, then in my opinion you have no right to criticise what the subsequent government does. Just accept what your apathy produces.

Rather than simply not vote and thereby betray the sacrifices of those in years gone by who died so that we can have the right to vote, you should vote for the party that comes closest to reflecting your beliefs. Beyond that, join a party which comes closest to your aspirations and try to influence it from the inside.

Of course, your summaries of all the parties are nonsense but I accept that they are not intended to be taken seriously. For instance, the Greens are a far cry from your rather tired stereotype and consist of people from all walks of life who simply take a bit of a longer term view than others. Understanding that the planet does not have the capacity to support an ever expanding population using an ever increasing amount of resources does not make you a tree hugging hippy - rather than opting out, it means opting in to modern technological fixes that allow for sustainable development.

For me, the Green agenda will have to be adopted sooner or later on an international level if society is not to degenrate into warfare over ever diminishing resources. So better vote Green now and help to get the agenda into the media a bit more than it currently is.

This is the longest really cold spell that we have had for several years. What we need to ask is whether we want money to be spent on staff and snow clearing equipment just in case we get a spell like this every 5 - 10 years or so, or whether we want to spend Council money on Schools and looking after the elderly all the time. For the resources they have, I think the Council staff do a great job keeping the main routes clear but obviously they can't do all the residential streets.

If you don't like it then the answer is to stand for election at the next Council election on a platform of raising council taxes to pay for stuff which will be used a few days a year at most. Or, you can move to Latvia where it sounds they have things sorted or to London where you can use the underground.

In the meantime, buy a decent pair of boots and a snow shovel and keep an eye out for the elderly neighbours. Oh, and clear your bloody windscreen and the 6 inches of snow from the roof of your car before you set off so it doesn't slide off when you brake. That's a real hazard that you can't blame the Council for.

The answer all depends on how big a shortlist can be. If its 5 or 6 then no chance. If its about 105 then yes, he MAY be on it.

I don't agree with the decision, all I'm saying is that it doesn't surprise me and I can understand the reasoning.

I am not at all suprised by this news and would have been suprised had he stayed. Hughes has been there sometime now and has had the opportunity to buy new players to blend with the better players he inherited. Since he's come in the team have not made much progress and recent form suggests they are going backwards. Before the start of the season all the pundits were predicting that if any team was going to break into the top four it would be Man City but that looks pretty unlikely at the moment despite Liverpool's woeful form. With the resources made available to him, the new owners are right to feel disappointed.

To give him the benefit of the doubt would be a big risk. If he doesn't turn things around then to let him go on for another few months would not give a new manager the time to rebuild prior to the new season. If he is going to going then now has to be the time. This means the new manager can strengthen the team in the transfer window. If that doesn't act as a springboard for the relatively modest improvement required to get into the top 4 then it will be an opportunity to consolidate the team for next season.

Having said that, I rate Hughes as a manager but think his strength is more in getting the best out of hard working average players rather than managing the prima donnas of the game. He'll get a post at a Bolton or Wigan where he'll do a great job and be appreciated.

He's not been sacked, he's been presented with a career diversification opportunity.

Don't think much of your lawyer. By refering to the winter solstice you are immediately disenfranchising the peoples of the half of the planet about to celebrate their summer solstice

Seasons greetings to all.

Dornoch Caley, I don't agree with much of what you say but I admire you for saying it in the first place and continuing to argue your case despite some rather unfairly worded criticism.

There's a quote which I can't quite remember but it goes something like "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". If people don't take an interest in politics then we get the politicians we deserve. What we need in this country is more youngsters like you taking an interest in politics and questioning the status quo. The more people who take an interest, the more those in power will be forced to be accountable for their actions. and we will get better, fairer government as a result.

Good on yer.

One or two points.

We don't have the balance right in this country. I am all for helping those who, for no fault of their own, are needy. The trouble is that there is so little difference between what people who have no desire to work can get off the welfare state and what hard working but low paid folk earn, that there is no incentive to get into work. Subsidising the scroungers prevents proper inmvestment to support the genuinely needy. At the other end of the pay scale, the massive tax evading scams of higher earners does the same. A fair day's work for a fair days pay.

Next. I don't have a problem with people earning a lot of money and as long as they pay reasonable taxes I don't see why they should be fleeced. They get paid more usually because they are good at what they do (bankers excepted). Many high earing business people generate wealth by their activities and create jobs for others. Force them to pay crippling taxes and they will either stop what they are doing or emigrate with the result that others will be thrown on to the dole.

Third. People are inherently selfish and vote for what will benefit them in the short term and not for what is good for the long term future of the country and the planet. Opinion polls will show that the public generally agree with the need to take measures to prevent global warming for instance but will not vote for restrictions on car use or for raising taxes to regenerate the railways. People are up in arms when there are cuts in the NHS but when a party campaigns on a platform of raising taxes in order to invest in the NHS the voters vote to protect the pound in their pockets. The duplicity of politicians reflects the duplicity of those of us who vote for them.

Finally, there is an intersting comparison between general economic philosophies and what happens in football. The mega stars earn huge sums simply because the big clubs want the best. Very talented players at the SFL level get bugger all and may only earn for a year or two before some injury ends their career and they have no trade or profession to fall back on. The injustice of this is clear to all but it exists because we, the fans, vote with our feet and TV remotes and the market gives us what we want.

I find a packet of Werther's originals is cheaper and lasts longer. An added bonus is that the rustling of the wrappers adds to the atomosphere at the stadium.

Great stuff. If there's half as much entertainment value in the match on Saturday we'll go home happy.

Dundee did well to overturn a 2 goal deficit to beat us last week and Burnley fought back from 5 - 0 down yesterday to only lose 5 - 3 to West Ham. But these comebacks pale into insignificance compared to the the antics of Soham Town Rangers in the Division one - Midlands of the Zamaretto league (formerly the Southern League).

Last weekend, away from home, they were 4 goals down after only 20 minutes but fought back to draw the game 4 - 4.

Yesterday, at home, it appeared that they had learnt their lesson. Far from being caught cold again, they raced into a 4 goal lead after only 28 minutes.

But had they really learnt their lesson? Not a bit of it! Remarkably, their opponents proceded to repeat the comeback of the previous week with the game again ending 4 - 4.

Does anyone know any comeback stories to match that?

Back to the mighty Soham Town Rangers. Having decided that being 4-0 down seemed to guarantee a 4- 4 draw, they went 4-0 down again this week. However, the tactic is not infallible: they lost 6-0.

I can't disagree with Jailender on this one. If his priority is first team football he'll likely return to Victoria Park in January. If he's more concerned about his bank balance he'll sit tight probably warming the bench at best.

Would he get first team football at County? They are a much better team now than they were when he was with them and he is unproven at this level. Unless we can get good money for him, a better option would be for him to go to a lower division side on loan so that he can get his confidence back by scoring a few goals. We don't have too many options up front and whilst I have been critical of Barrowman in the past, we need him as an option. I also don't think anyone would pay good money for him.

I stand corrected. I heard a radio report earlier which said it was Suso Santana and Goncalves who had been summoned to the referee's room but a later report confirms it was Black and not Goncalves who was red carded. Still, there must be some serious problems with Hearts and they could be serious contenders for the drop if they don't begin to get their act together.

What's going on at Hearts? Two red cards during the match and two after and none of them shown to Ian Black. Has he lost his competetive edge?